Capital One $425M class action settlement: Do you qualify?
The settlement includes customers who maintained a Capital One 360 Savings account between Sept. 18, 2019, and June 16, 2025.
Here's what to know.
What is the class action settlement about?
Earlier this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Capital One over its savings accounts, accusing the company of freezing its rate at a low level for several years, despite rising rates nationally, 'cheating' customers out of more than $2 billion in lost interest payments as a result.
Multiple lawsuits have been brought against Capital One over the 360 Savings accounts, which are now being overseen by a federal judge in Virginia.
New York parents fight insurance denial for baby's life-saving brain surgery
Capital One, which has not admitted to wrongdoing, has agreed to pay a $425 million class action settlement.
Who qualifies?
If you had a 360 Savings account with Capital One between September 18, 2019, and June 16, 2025, you may qualify for a portion of the $425 million settlement. Capital One will provide a list of those customers for the settlement but qualifying members have also received a notice.
You do not need to file a claim to receive a payout. However, you'll need to use the ID and four-digit PIN found on the settlement notice to select your payment option online. The deadline to make your selection is October 2, 2025.
Daylight saving time: Will this be the last time we 'fall back?'
Settlement administrators note that, if you opt for a paper check, you will not receive one if your payout amount is less than $5. If you opt for an electronic payment, you'll receive your payout regardless of how much it is.
How much will I receive?
Part of the $425 million settlement will be dispersed to qualifying account holders, totalling what they 'would have earned if their 360 Savings account(s) had paid the interest rate then applicable to the 360 Performance Savings account.' The latter are accounts that did see rising rates, but that were allegedly hidden from those with 360 Savings accounts.
A portion of the settlement, $125 million, is earmarked for paying qualifying account holders 'additional interest payments.' According to the settlement website, Capital One will 'maintain an interest rate on the 360 Savings account of at least two times the national average rate for savings deposit accounts as calculated by the FDIC' to those who still have 360 Savings accounts. Those payments will continue until all of the $125 million has been dispersed.
Payouts will be determined based on the life of the account and how much interest you would have received if you had a 360 Performance Savings account, 'multiplied by a to-be-determined value.' Payouts for those who still have an active 360 Savings account will be calculated nearly the same, except without a multiplier.
Why your phone's weather forecast can be way off
You will also receive the aforementioned 'additional interest payments' if you keep your Capital One 360 Savings account open after October 2, 2025. You do not need to file a claim for these payments.
If your account has already closed or been converted to a 360 Performance Savings account — or you do either before October 2 — 'you will receive a Class Cash Payment that is currently estimated to be approximately 15% larger,' the settlement site explains.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 6, 2025. Individual payment amounts will vary and have not yet been specified.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Paves Way for Mass Layoffs at C.F.P.B.
A federal appeals court paved the way for the Trump administration to move ahead with plans to decimate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling 2 to 1 to throw out a lower court's effort to block mass layoffs. In the 49-page ruling, Judge Gregory G. Katsas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a Trump appointee, wrote that Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington had no jurisdiction to block the Trump administration's efforts to lay off about 1,500 of the C.F.P.B.'s 1,700 workers. Civil servants' employment-related complaints are subject under law to a specialized review process, he wrote, and the plaintiffs' other grievances did not pertain to reviewable, final agency actions or unconstitutional acts. 'Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunctions,' Judge Katsas wrote in the majority decision, in which he was joined by Judge Neomi Rao, also a Trump appointee. But the effect of the ruling is not expected for at least seven days, leaving the plaintiffs time to appeal. This spring, the Trump administration attempted to reduce the C.F.P.B.'s work force by nearly 90 percent, a move blocked by Judge Jackson. Over the next several weeks, a frenetic back-and-forth ensued, as the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned Judge Jackson's initial injunction before allowing a revised version to stand until they could fully address the matter. The C.F.P.B., an Obama-era creation that was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, has long been a target of President Trump, and was a focal point for his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a federal cost-cutting operation led by the tech billionaire Elon Musk. Less than three weeks into Mr. Trump's second term, Russell T. Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget who was also named acting director of the C.F.P.B., ordered the agency's employees to cease 'all supervision and examination activity,' effectively freezing their operations. The layoff notices came almost immediately after. Congress created the C.F.P.B. in 2010, as part of a wider financial regulatory overhaul, and the plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration's efforts to diminish it were an unlawful power grab from the legislative branch. The appeals court's ruling disputed their argument that the administration's moves to drastically reduce the agency's staff were a final decision about the fate of the agency. In a dissent published Friday, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama appointee, rejected her colleagues' view, stating that only Congress could dissolve the agency. 'It is emphatically not within the discretion of the president or his appointees to decide that the country would benefit most if there were no bureau at all,' she wrote in a 60-page dissent.
Epoch Times
a day ago
- Epoch Times
Federal Appeals Court Sides With Trump Admin in Mass Firing of CFPB Staff
The Trump administration scored a major legal win on Friday as a federal appeals court lifted an order that had kept the government from cutting staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), clearing the way for sweeping changes at the financial watchdog. In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Aug. 15 vacated the preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who in April found the administration was 'engaged in an unlawful effort to dismantle and eliminate' the CFPB. The majority held that the employment claims brought by the plaintiffs—the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) that represents CFPB staff—must be handled through federal labor channels and that the remaining allegations did not involve final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
CNBC
a day ago
- CNBC
In split decision, court clears Trump to restart CFPB mass firings
A divided federal appeals court on Friday cleared U.S. President Donald Trump to resume mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling that a lower court had lacked jurisdiction in temporarily blocking this. However, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said on Friday that its decision would not take immediate effect, allowing lawyers representing CFPB workers and pro-consumer organizations to seek reconsideration by the full court of appeals, meaning dismissal notices were likely to have to wait for now. The decision nevertheless imperiled the employment of perhaps 1,500 workers at the CFPB whose mass dismissals were blocked in April by a trial court, which found the attempted purge violated a March injunction temporarily halting the administration's efforts to shut the CFPB down. Representatives for the CFPB did not immediately respond to requests for comment. However, Jennifer Bennett, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the decision threatened to leave the public unprotected from the misdeeds of bad actors in the market for consumer finance. "Without the full force of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - an agency Congress created specifically to protect consumers - millions will lose critical safeguards against predatory financial practices. If this decision is allowed to stand, it will shift the balance of power toward corporations at the expense of American families' financial security," Bennett said in a statement without addressing plans for further appeal. In their ruling, U.S. Circuit Court Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao found that, despite factual findings that the Trump administration intended to destroy the CFPB, the lower court had acted outside its authority. "We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment, which must proceed through the specialized-review scheme" under laws governing the civil service, the majority wrote. Other objections raised by the plaintiffs did not concern final decisions made by the agency and so could not be reviewed in court, wrote Katsas and Rao, both Trump appointees. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard said the lower court had acted properly in blocking the Trump administration from eradicating the CFPB entirely as the lawsuit played out. "But it is emphatically not within the discretion of the President or his appointees to decide that the country would benefit most if there were no Bureau at all," wrote Pillard, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Two watchdog organizations, the Federal Reserve's inspector general and Congress's Government Accountability Office, launched investigations earlier this year into the Trump administration's actions at the CFPB. Congress created the CFPB in the wake of the 2008 financial crash to police consumer finance industries whose activities generated the toxic assets underlying that crisis. Conservatives and industrial lobbies have long reviled the agency, accusing it of weighing on free enterprise and acting outside the bounds of the law to pursue politicized enforcement. Trump officials have appeared to vacillate this year concerning their plans for the CFPB, with Trump and erstwhile adviser Elon Musk saying it should be eradicated outright, even though senior officials have said in court they plan to shrink the agency but let it live in some form as required by law. Lawyers representing workers and consumer groups, however, rejected this, saying witness testimony showed top officials did not intend to maintain a functioning CFPB. In court, they produced evidence and testimony showing the attempted mass dismissals of March and April were so widespread they completely vacated entire offices or left them so understaffed as to be incapable of performing functions by law, lawyers for CFPB workers and consumer advocates said in court.
